Re: That dwarf2read patch i just submitted

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin at redhat dot com>]

Kevin Buettner <kevinb@cygnus.com> writes:

> On Oct 23, 12:55pm, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> 
> > Kevin Buettner <kevinb@cygnus.com> writes:
> > 
> > > On Oct 23, 10:02am, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > > 
> > > > So no one feels slighted, that last dwarf2 patch I submitted (to add
> > > > support for .debug_loc) is based on a patch I found on gdb-patches
> > > > that is a few years old, submitted originally by one of the ADA guys.
> > > > I cleaned it up so that it works with dwarf2read of today, but if you
> > > > want credit, email me, and i'll put your name in the ChangeLog
> > > > instead.
> > > 
> > > Dan,
> > > 
> > > You should definitely give credit to the original submitter of the
> > > patch (whether they step forward or not).  Also, you should make sure
> > > that we have a copyright assignment on file for whomever submitted
> > > that patch.
> > 
> > The problem is I can't seem to find it in the archives anymore using
> > the search engine, or else I would have. I really don't want to go
> > back month by month, trying to find the patch again.
> 
> It looks to me like it was
> 
>     http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/1999-q2/msg00054.html
> 
> The author of this patch is Brian Nettleton.
Thanks, let me hunt him down.

> 
> > The patch is actually <30 lines of code, and thus, shouldn't require
> > copyright assignment.
> 
> I'm not sure what the metric is for requiring a copyright assignment,
> but I thought it was lower than 30.  (Perhaps Andrew could let us
> know?)

I thought it was a couple hundred lines.

> 
> Anyway, you're off by an order of magnitude.  If I'm looking at the
> right patch, it's actually 322 lines long. 

That's with context and everything, what matters is the amount of code
modified.
> The number of lines
> affected by this patch is also greater than 30.  The locblock function
> and corresponding comment alone are 39 lines.
> 
> > I also modified every line of the patch, literally.
> 
> It is true that you modified many of the lines, but you didn't touch
> *all* of them.
I was almost positive I did.
I could add support for multiple block location lists, which should
mean touching every line.

> 
> E.g, with the exception of the comment (which you split to be on two
> lines),
This was probably emacs, filling it.
>  the following section from Brian's patch appears to be identical
> to what you submitted:
> 
> + {
> +   char *loc_ptr;
> +   struct dwarf_block *result;
> + 
> +   switch (attr->form)
> +     {
> +     case DW_FORM_block:
> +     case DW_FORM_block1:
> +     case DW_FORM_block2:
> +     case DW_FORM_block4:
> +       return DW_BLOCK(attr);
> +     case DW_FORM_ref_addr:
> +     case DW_FORM_ref_udata:
> +       /* return the first block in the location list for now */
> +       loc_ptr = dwarf_loc_buffer + dwarf2_get_ref_die_offset(attr);
> 
> Even if you had modified every line from Brian's patch, he should
> still be credited for the changes.
Oh, thus I know, i'm trying to avoid having to get him to sign
copyright assignment if he hasn't already.

>  It's a maintainer's job to adapt a
> patch so that it works with current sources. 

> Adapting a patch that is
> several years old may well require substantial modification, but the
> original submitter should still be given credit.  (And if he's to be
> given credit, we must then observe the FSF's mandates regarding
> copyright assignments.)
Sigh.
I'll redo the work then.
Is there any way i can give him credit, without having to get a
copyright assignment from him?
> 
> Kevin